"Mirage" discussion thread

[Escriba]

Okeeeyy... the thread is getting deep...

Frankly, the more I learn about the Japanese in WWII the less I sympathize with those who didn't think we should have used the atomic bomb. It's horrible and brutal math, but it saved not only a lot of American lives, but a lot of Japanese lives too (AND Chinese). That government was going to make its people fight to the end. Hell, they didn't even give up after the FIRST bomb.

As my Constitutional Law teacher used to say: It justifies it, but it doesn't legitimize it. Never mix the two things.

Based on History here on Earth, Humans are more likely to forgive and forget.

After WWII there was much revealed about the atrocities made by the Japanese and to an extent by the Germans. But in a half cetury it has all been erased. today there are Japanase and German Products, and culture in the U.S. and no one blinks. Right after the war there waas a great deal of Hatred towards both countires.

I believe that the Humans could get over Vulcan hatred and distrust if given half a chance. Not sure about the Vulcans. Do they carry a grudge?

Well, yes. In a way, forgiveness, or more likely, the capacity to change is a very Human trait. As Soval told Forrest in "The Forge": "There are those on the High Command who wonder what humans would achieve in the century to come."

On the other hand, Humans and Vulcans are in different stages in the war, and no, I'm not talking about the fact that Humans seem to be winning. See, the war lasts now around 75 years. For Vulcans that means that there have been people who have fought it from the beginning. V'Lar remembers the First Contact. So although war is more personal for them in some way, in another way it's easier for them to stop, because they remember what they lost and all the suffering the war is giving.

Humans, as they're concerned, are around the third or the fourth generation into the war (since Human average life span in "Mirage" is the same or even less than at the present.) One day I heard something interesting: in all the revolutionary fights, political wars and things of the like, if they last more than one generation, the first mostly fights for ideals, but in the second generation there are no ideals, just violence. Humans don't remember why they are fighting, only that they are fighting. Yes, they can reel all the evil things Vulcan did off parrot-fashion (and somehow Trip will), but they don't remember them, not in the way Vulcans do. They have a "idealization" of the war and it's much easier to manipulate people that think things are in a way and they're the purest and the most perfect and anything that isn't achieving that ideal world is betraying it. They can't give in. It seems a contradiction, but what I mean is that for the generations that didn't start the war there is no blood lake deep enough to achieve what they want, which isn't the ideals their parents had (peace), but to eliminate the enemy because... because it's evil, damn it.

[Silverbullet]

Honeybee Love actualy did occur between occupier and occupied but it depended o the Occupation. In NOrway where the Occupation was much more benign than in say France or Holland there were Romances.

So, Tnt coulld very well fall in love if ech had not experienced themselves a terrible, Horrible happening from the war. True ech had killed an enemy for what they considered good rasons at the time but Trip was bothered by what he had done and perhaps T-Pol was too. so they may be inherently good people who by way of fate came together, found Love that would transcend the species. as Maggie told Mestal "Love bridges the Species."

[Silverbullet]

Escriba, what about the 100 and 30 years wars in Europe? I had heard that they often called a truce for a while and then went back to the fighting and at the end the wars just sort of petered out no one knew why or how they started. I believe the 30 years war was a Religioous War but what caused the 100 years war I cannot remember.

[Alelou]

As appalling as the behavior of the Japanese in China and other occupied countries was (and yes, I know -- try Bataan!), the Japanese soldiers committing those atrocities were also victims of atrocities by the officers over them, and took out their fury on the next level down. That kind of brutality gets passed down the line. Imagine being a student who has to fly kamikaze missions -- and you're the lucky, privileged ones -- the university students! You don't get any mercy, so you're sure as hell not going to show any to these subhumans beneath you.

And yes, people in the Netherlands suffered terribly from the Germans during the war, too, though I think simple starvation impacted far more of the (non-Jewish) Dutch than violence did.

I have read quite a bit about Manzanar, Pegmumm. It was indeed a terrible miscarriage of justice, but it in no way compares to what went on under Japanese occupation.

(And yes, a point well taken, Escriba. Though once you're into a war I think what's justified will trump what's legitimate any day. That's what makes it so terrifying.)

[WarpGirl]

I just want more chapters please.

[Silverbullet]

Alelou, fortunately, for me, I lived in the U.S. and wa just a kid. but I remember the photos that came out immediately after the war. They didn't pull any punches in those days. You were shown it raw. Then there wre the Newsreels of liberated Camps both in Europe and in the Japanese held territory. Nauseating. One that stood out in peoples mind simply because it was such a sadistic act of brutality was of aJapanese soldier beheading an Australian Pilot just because he wanted to see what it was like to cut off a man's head. The photos of Nanking of rows of Heads on fence Posts and the bodies laying around. One of a child sitting in rubble crying becuase it's parents had been killed in the bombing and it had no one to comfor it. Maybe propaganda but the War was over and the need to generate hate for the enemy was over too.

[Transwarp]

Ex-husband was a curator of a local museum... the propaganda in the US surpassed anything seen anywhere in the world.

Then I would question the impartiality of that particular museum exhibit. I'm not completely certain what you mean by 'surpassed', but it sounds like you are suggesting that US war propaganda was worse than any of the axis powers, which I find mind-boggling. I also don't see any moral equivalence between allied atrocities and those committed by the Germans or Japanese. (BTW, the Korean people are not overly fond of the Japanese, either. I think brutal occupations are hard to get over.)

As for the atomic bomb, I am glad I was not in Truman's position to have to decide whether or not to use it. But given the carnage at the battle for Okinawa (50,000 US casualties in three months; over 100,000 lost on the Japanese side), and the casualty forecasts for an invasion of the Japanese mainland, I suspect I would have made the same decision.

As my Constitutional Law teacher used to say: It justifies it, but it doesn't legitimize it. Never mix the two things.

But if its use is justified, doesn't that make it legitimate? Perhaps your teacher is pointing out the distinction between what is legal and what is moral (the two are often not the same), but in this case, I see the use of the A-bomb to end a bloody war with the fewest casualties possible (on both sides) as both legal AND moral. Therefore legitimate. (If I understand your teacher's point correctly, that is.)

[Escriba]

But if its use is justified, doesn't that make it legitimate? Perhaps your teacher is pointing out the distinction between what is legal and what is moral (the two are often not the same), but in this case, I see the use of the A-bomb to end a bloody war with the fewest casualties possible (on both sides) as both legal AND moral. Therefore legitimate. (If I understand your teacher's point correctly, that is.)

No, or not entirely. Legitimation always comes first, due to acts seen "a priori" ("what is wrong is wrong"), justification comes "a posteriori", after you've done it ("it was wrong, but it was effective.")

For example, killing is illegal=illegitimate (it's against Law.) You can't kill another person. Now, if he was going to kill you, you can plead self-defense as a justification. That doesn't make the killing legitimate, it only allows you not to suffer the sentence or penalty because you couldn't act any other way. You had an excuse.

In the case of the A-bomb the "justification" came after and it works just because things happened like they happened. As Alelou said, Japanese didn't surrender with the first bomb. So US dropped the second (and this time they were fully aware of what it could do.) What if they didn't surrender with the second either? US drops a third? A fourth? A fifth? They obliterate Japan? How many deaths justifies it?

"Oh, but it worked." Yeah, you know it now. Morally it was wrong from the beginning, from the point of view of axiological rules that existed before (as I recall it's against the rules of war to attack an enemy that can't defend himself. Japanese had absolutely no defense against a nuclear attack.) And by the way, the results of the A-bomb aren't as beneficial as they seem if we think that its use took use to 50 years of sheer terror where two big blocks could push a button and destroy the world any time.

Please, I'm not pointing at US and accusing it (you) of being monsters, that's not my intention. I'm fully aware that we have the privilege of seeing things calmly now that we aren't in that situation. The distinction our teacher (it was the Philosophy of the Law teacher, I made a mistake) asked to do is important because sometimes you can rationalize true brutality in the name of effectiveness. And that's dangerous.

Sorry, the Law student in me talking Sometimes I ride in my big horse and I'm a little insufferable.

That kind of brutality gets passed down the line. Imagine being a student who has to fly kamikaze missions -- and you're the lucky, privileged ones -- the university students!

Oh, the really sneaky part is that the Japanese Government convinced those young students that they were doing the right thing. They died happily. Such a brainwash is scary. But hey, it's not like I haven't seen that brainwashing here

Escriba, what about the 100 and 30 years wars in Europe? I had heard that they often called a truce for a while and then went back to the fighting and at the end the wars just sort of petered out no one knew why or how they started. I believe the 30 years war was a Religioous War but what caused the 100 years war I cannot remember.

Yes, exactly, those long wars used to be intermittent, since it's kind of impossible to fight over 100 years without a pause. The 30 Years War was a war for power masked as a religious war (but what's new about that?) and the 100 Years' War was a Dinasty war, it began with two royal houses fighting for the French throne, which was vacant with the extinction of the senior Capetian line of French kings. Again, a war for power

Basically I took the 30 Years War as an example, so good sight, Silverbullet

[Alelou]

The Japanese brainwashed SOME of those students into dying happily -- not all of them. I've seen interviews with Japanese veterans who were desperately hoping the Americans would win quickly. They were smart enough to know their side was losing and their lives would be given for nothing.

All militaries 'brainwash' to some extent. How else do you get young men to purposely run themselves into gunfire and mortar without breaking ranks and crying for mommy? If nothing else, they're trained and trained and trained to never let the other guys see just how terrified they are.

[Transwarp]

Sorry, the Law student in me talking Sometimes I ride in my big horse and I'm a little insufferable.

No need to apologize for a post that is both fascinating, informative, cogent and thought-provoking (if not entirely convincing.)

First, I must disagree that all killing is illegal, therefore illegitimate. Murder is illegal (by definition), but killing in self-defense is not. Protecting yourself and others from the threat of death is not only justified, it is a legal, ethical and moral application of lethal force. When a person claims self-defense, that claim is not an excuse that allows him to escape the legal penalty for a murder he's committed, because his act was not murder. Self-defense is a category of killing that is justified AND legitimate, a priori and a posteriori, morally and ethically.

In the case of the A-bomb the "justification" came after and it works just because things happened like they happened. As Alelou said, Japanese didn't surrender with the first bomb. So US dropped the second (and this time they were fully aware of what it could do.) What if they didn't surrender with the second either? US drops a third? A fourth? A fifth? They obliterate Japan? How many deaths justifies it?

Well, we were out of bombs after the second one, so we would've had to build more. But I'm not sure I can accept this argument: "Mr. President, the Japanese might not surrender after we drop our bombs, therefore we must mount an invasion of Japan instead." I cannot quite wrap my brain around that argument.

"Oh, but it worked." Yeah, you know it now. Morally it was wrong from the beginning, from the point of view of axiological rules that existed before (as I recall it's against the rules of war to attack an enemy that can't defend himself. Japanese had absolutely no defense against a nuclear attack.)

Which leads to this exchange: "Mr. President, the Japanese have no defense against these weapons, so we cannot use them. We must mount an invasion of Japan instead."

These arguments might make sense if I accept the premise that any use of an A-bomb is wrong (and killing in self-defense is wrong), but after the fact you can escape judgment if it 'worked'. To me, the use is justified (and legitimate) if the reasons are legitimate. I maintain that trying to end the war quickly without the staggering casualties (on both sides) of an invasion is a legitimate reason to use it. But what if Japan didn't surrender, and the war dragged on? That doesn't make the reasons illegitimate, it just makes them incorrect.

And by the way, the results of the A-bomb aren't as beneficial as they seem if we think that its use took us to 50 years of sheer terror where two big blocks could push a button and destroy the world any time.

You can not blame the use of the A-bomb for the 50 years of terror. They are unrelated. In any event, the fact that they had been used once, and all could see the results of their use might have helped keep that button from being pushed. Who can say? And if your arguing that because of this, the U.S. should not have developed the bomb in the first place, all I can say is I would not want to live in a world where only the USSR had nuclear weapons. I believe it would be a far darker world.

The distinction our teacher (it was the Philosophy of the Law teacher, I made a mistake) asked to do is important because sometimes you can rationalize true brutality in the name of effectiveness. And that's dangerous.

At last, a point we can agree on! But just because some people use these principles to rationalize their brutality doesn't mean the principles are wrong. And it doesn't mean every use of force is brutality.

Thank you for your post. It made me think. It made me examine my beliefs and why I believe them, which is something we all should do from time to time.

[Silverbullet]

If I may. I was alive at that time. I doubt if any of you were. There wasn't any attempt at judements of moral philosophy. That came later. It was we have to end this war. People weere sick of it and tired of being scared to see a Telegram delivery boy. He was the angel of Death. He delivered the message that a son, Husband,or some other male of the family had been killed. The people would not want an invasion with the million projected casualities. That was just to establish a beachhead and move inland to take the first Island. There were others to take. No, had the public been given a choice it would have been overwhelmingly to use the A-bomb. There was no remorse in the U.S. after both bombs were dropped. Just relief that it was at last over and no more U.S. deaths.

Moral judgements from years after the fact are not accurate. It is when what is being judged happens and the circumstances it happens under that counts.

I have never given the bomb a second thought. Not it being dropped on the two Japanese cities. The thinkijg was at that time: You started it, you pay the consequences. Don't start a War you cannot win.

[Alelou]

I agree that public sentiment would have been overwhelmingly for it, but it's not true that nobody at the time gave it a second thought. Plenty of people did -- perhaps especially the people who had to make the actual decision and then implement it.

[panyasan]

Escriba: I love when you teach us law! Very interesting points on all sides. I am not sure what to think if the A-bomb it was justified or not, all I know the A-bomb is a horrible brutal weapon, but also that the war was costing a lot of people on both sides. I really came to love the Japanese, but hardly any education is giving about the war and the Japanese war crimes. They just don't know. In the meanwhile, the old farts who started they whole thing are still making their voice known. Haven't learned a thing. If I compares this with the German attitude: a whole process of coming to terms with the past and offering apologies to nations that were hurt, I think the Germans dealt with their warpast much better.

[Silverbullet]

Alelou, the Scientists who built the thing, yes. But Scientists are used to their brainchild being used for ends that they don't agree with.

However, the Military leaders, Politicians and others wre simply concerned with ending the war and the Body count. The thought of what it would take to go in and subdue the Japanese was much more horrifying to them than using a Bomb that could kill thousands at a time. No contest.

There once was a weapon that the Vatican Banned. It ws not to be used. The Crossbow. But it was too good a weapon. It Pierce Armor and could be fired some distnce with effect. No country would give it up. It only disappeareed when the Musket became Availabel. gunpowder was more useful.

Mankind will use a weapon if it is built. Certainly the Germans or the Japanese would have used an A-bomb without thught if it would win the war and eventual domination over the Planet.

Even today, the Bomb is in many hands and some of those hands are attached to Nuts who would use it. The only thing stopping the bomb's wisesprad use it the retaliation factor. You throw it, you will get it back.

Do you really belive that Iran would hesitate using it on Israeli cities if it weren't worried that Iran would get bombed by it too.

[Alelou]

I remember watching a documentary about the bomb on Nagasaki and one of the pilots was really haunted by it, from the beginning. You could see it still tortured him. (Others had no hesitation at all.)

And I doubt very much it was just scientists who had hesitation. Of course, a good politician won't tend to show it.